In
November 2013, Plaintiff Olin Clark, driving in snowy
conditions, collided with Defendant Gilberto Oliviera's
police cruiser. Defendant James Hanson investigated and
concluded in his report that Olin was at fault. Olin and his
father, Plaintiff Chris Clark, maintain otherwise. And they
believe that the erroneous at-fault determination is, or soon
will, adversely affect them. For example, they fear harm to
Olin's reputation and increased costs for auto insurance.
The Clarks thus filed this lawsuit, alleging that the
erroneous police report has caused violations of their rights
under the Constitution. They ask this Court to issue an
injunction to correct the report and to declare
unconstitutional the state process for contesting insurance
rate increases.

Defendants
have moved for dismissal on various grounds. (R. 12.) Having
reviewed the parties' briefs, the Court will forgo oral
argument. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f). For the reasons
set out below, the Court finds that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over the Clarks' claims against the Michigan
Department of State Police and over their claims based on
Olin's blemished driving record. As for the Clarks'
claim that Michigan provides constitutionally inadequate
procedures for challenging insurance rate increases, the
Court finds that claim implausible. As such, the Court will
GRANT Defendants' motion.

I.

Given
the nature of Defendants' motion, the Court presents the
non-conclusory allegations of the Clarks' amended
complaint as fact. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 677 (2009); Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504
U.S. 555, 561 (1992).

On
November 13, 2013, Olin Clark was driving westbound on I-96
in Livingston County, Michigan. (R. 11, PID 42 ¶ 11.)
The driving conditions were poor: snow was falling heavily
with a “major accumulation of snow” already on
the highway. (Id. ¶ 12.) Olin was driving in
“approximately the left lane, ” and ahead of Olin
on the left was a vehicle that had slid off the road.
(See Id. ¶¶ 13, 14.) Michigan State
Trooper Gilberto Oliveira, who had been driving in
“approximately the center lane, ” apparently saw
the disabled vehicle and “moved left into”
Olin's “right of way[.]” (See Id.
¶ 15.) Olin “immediately” applied his
breaks, but he “was unable to stop due to the
infringement of his right of way and struck the right rear
corner of Oliveira's patrol car.” (Id.
¶¶ 15, 18.) Defendant Andrew Hayes (also a state
trooper) was a passenger in Oliveira's car. (Id.
¶ 19.)

Michigan
State Trooper James Hanson investigated the accident. (R. 11,
PID 42 ¶ 20.) Hanson's report contained a number of
errors, including that the “Crash Type” indicated
a rear end collision instead of a right-of-way infringement;
that Oliveira's “Hazardous Action” was
“None”; that Clark's “Hazardous
Action” was “speed too fast”; that the
narrative portion of the report claimed that Oliveira's
car was stationary at the time of collision (when in fact it
was moving); and that the narrative said that Clark had
“lost control” prior to the collision. (R. 11,
PID 43-44; R. 27, PID 229-30.) Hanson neither interviewed
Olin nor the passenger in Olin's vehicle in preparing his
report. (R. 11, PID 45 ¶ 27.)

In
February 2014, apparently having reviewed the video from
Oliveira's patrol car (which the Clarks maintain shows
that Oliveira's car was not stationary at the time of
collision but instead moving from right to left), the
Clarks' lawyer sent an employee misconduct complaint to
the Professional Standards Section of the Michigan Department
of State Police, outlining the errors in Hanson's report.
(R. 11, PID 44 ¶ 23-25.)

A
lieutenant with the Professional Standards Section responded
to the Clarks via letter, agreeing with the Clarks to the
extent that some “minor corrections . . . needed to be
made on the UD-10 [report].” (R. 27, PID 238.) These
included changing the number of lanes on I-96 (2 changed to
3), the direction of travel on the highway (eastbound changed
to westbound), and Oliveira's status at the time of
collision (stopped changed to slowing or stopping). (R. 27,
PID 238.) But the letter also stated, “I have reviewed
the applicable police reports and, in conjunction with other
state police commanders, have determined that Mr. Clark was
properly listed as the, [sic] at fault driver, in
the traffic crash.” (Id.)

In late
March 2014, the Clarks' lawyer sent a letter to the
Michigan Department of State Police Commander, asking that
the UD-10 report be further corrected and that “the
troopers be disciplined for their false statements.”
(R. 11, PID 45 ¶ 29.) A captain replied that they would
make no further corrections to the report and that they would
take no disciplinary action against the troopers.
(Id. ¶ 30.)

The
Clarks' counsel also contacted the Michigan Department of
State asking that department to correct Olin's driving
record. (R. 11, PID 46 ¶ 32.) The Department informed
the Clarks that the only way that his driving record could be
changed was if the Michigan Department of State Police
submitted an amended report. (Id. ¶ 33.)

Having
not received the relief he sought from either the State
Police or the Department of State, Olin and his father, Chris
Clark, filed this lawsuit against the Michigan Department of
State Police, Oliveira, Hayes, and Hanson. (Chris owned and
insured the vehicle Olin was driving. (See R. 27,
PID 201.)) Although their amended complaint is not a model of
clarity, it appears that the Clarks believe they have been
injured in four ways: that the “at-fault”
designation on Olin's driving record may result in harm
to Olin's reputation, that the at-fault designation may
affect Olin's driving privileges, that the lessor of
Oliveira's patrol car has demanded payment for the damage
to the car, and that their insurance costs have risen or may
rise. (See R. 11, PID 45 ¶ 30; R. 11, PID 46
¶ 39; R. 27, PID 197-98, 206, 210.) The Clarks ask this
Court to remedy these harms in two ways: by “enjoining
Michigan State Police from maintaining the false and
inaccurate report including, but not limited to, preparing a
corrected report and submitting it to the Michigan Department
of State Police and its lessor” and by declaring a
number of state laws pertaining to the process of challenging
insurance rates to be unconstitutional or inadequate. (R. 11,
PID 51.)[1]

II.

Before
turning to the merits, the Court must address two issues that
pertain to its subject-matter jurisdiction: sovereign
immunity and the Clarks' standing to pursue certain
claims.

A.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&ldquo;[T]he
Eleventh Amendment is a true jurisdictional bar that courts
can-but are not required to-raise sua sponte at any
stage in litigation, and, once raised as a jurisdictional
defect, must be decided before the merits.&rdquo; Russell
v. Lundergan-Grimes, 784 F.3d 1037, 1046 (6th Cir.
2015). Here, the Michigan Department of State Police asserts
Eleventh Amendment, or perhaps more precisely, sovereign
immunity. (R. 12, ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.